I'm starting this debate because I strongly agree that gay/lesbian love should be accepted among society. There isn't anything wrong, in my opinion, with not being in a so called "straight" relationship.

1) Being gay or lesbian (therefore being attracted to your own gender) is perfectly normal and should be treated with the same respect as a relationship with opposite the opposite sex. It is a very natural, normal circumstance and it doesn't matter who we are, we should all have our fair chance at love. Not being mentally or physically attracted to the opposite sex doesn't mean we are weird or different...it means we are unique and special in our own little way. If being with our own gender makes us happy then SO BE IT, because we only live once. We are all people and everyone should be treated equally. Thus, being in love, marrying, or even just liking someone, of the same gender as yourself is not a horrible deed and should be seen as a welcomed
attribute.

To rebuddle my opponent:
being gay or being straight are two totally different things that can apply to different people. Being gay is maybe normal to some people while being straight is considered the norm to others. This "normality" is known as one's own truth on the matter.
For example : the sky is blue...right? The other person sees it as more of an aqua-marine colour. That is the truth to them. Where as a blue sky is the truth to us.
Thus, if someone is gay, that is the way THEY are and the way THEY were made.
Just like maybe to them, being straight isn't the way it should be.
Bottom line, is that everyone and anyone can do what THEY want and what THEY feel is right to them. Therefore judging them in society doesn't make us better.

Rebuttal: Pro's approach is a sourceless manipulation of "relative truth". The nail in her coffin is this:

As per the federal DOMA act (adopted by over 38 states) the voting American population believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore the "relative truth" of this country is that gay marriage is undesirable. [1], [2]

I guess America thinks a blue sky is just fine. We don't need to amend our thinking and make it "aqua-marine."

Con's argument doesn't justify how society SHOULD be treating and accepting gay/lesbian relationships.
According to the realism of these relationships...they are allowed and perfectly normal without
Having any negative physical effects. This is a very controversial topic, however, this link will explain the truth on the matter.

Pro said:... without having any negative physical effects. Answer: That's a pretty bold statement. Are we supposed to ignore the source that supports the STD statistics? The negative physical side-effects are an epidemic. That's not something we should bury in the sand for the sake of political correctness.

Pro used zero sources until her last round. Pro is assuming that wikipedia will debate for her. I provided evidence that homosexual relations are statistically high disease vectors. I also provided evidence that the majority voting population does not support a gay union. Therefore I have supplied a problem and a solution. Non-acceptance based on voting statistics.

The [American Psychiatric Association] has chosen to ignore the significant medical research which has documented serious psychiatric and medical illnesses associated with those same-sex attractions and behaviors. This research and that on the needs of children for a father and a mother have been reviewed in several important recent papers from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the University of Utah School of Medicine...Well-designed research studies have shown that many psychiatric disorders are far more prevalent, three to five times, in teenagers and adults with same-sex attraction [SSA]. These include major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships. It is important to note that 'homophobia' is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality is widely accepted. Another recent study has shown that a high percentage, 32%, of males with SSA have been abused by other males with SSA.

Also, someone should have defined society somewhere in this debate. If you take society as the "The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." Then, you have societies/communities which already accept gay and lesbian love as well as others which do not. The DOMA act therefore, is irrelevant as simply stating the state legislature had adopted a federal act does not mean the societies existing within that state agree with the state legislatures adoption of DOMA. Unless of course it was put to a referendum of the entire United States population. Until that is done you cannot know for sure what everyone thinks. Only what the state's legislature thinks.

Reasons for voting decision: Last round pro didn't even debate, just posted a link, and then dropped all arguments due to that. She dropped his arguments. Pro could have used polls on gay marriage, but con had a sources on DOMA which proved his point.

Reasons for voting decision: This debate basically went back and forth, Although I gave Con Sources cause hes the only one that did. I gave Arguments because Everyone is voting for Con and This obviously is going to be a slight V-bomb. Sorry I cant vote anymore though Pro.

Reasons for voting decision: I was highly disappointed with this round. Out of any and every possible topic, pro probably had the easiest BOP to fulfill and couldn't do it. Never really responded to con's arguments or supported a logical point. Even for a first debate, I thought this could've been better on a lot of levels. Easy win for con.

Reasons for voting decision: this debate annoys me, Pro had an easy burden of proof to fulfill to win the debate but she failed to do so while the con gave several unchallenged arguments. arguments and sources to con even though casting this vote makes me feel like im stabbing a puppy to death :(

Reasons for voting decision: I honestly still agree with pro, which is why this vote makes me so sad. Con refuted all arguments including rebuttals with factual evidence and argumentation vs the truths of pro. Unfortunately, i must look at this debate from an unbiased perspective, therefore con wins argumentation and sources. Im sorry pro :( EDIT: Wikipedia was sited by both sides, try to refrain from this source please. Also, pro don't ask people to look at sources for arguments, let them be in your speech.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.